zombiefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Maggots
Ok, I don't see why this needs to be a page. I added on a little bit to the description, but this seems silly. Hike1580 01:28, January 2, 2011 (UTC) this is hilarius. why should it be deleted? it is exactly the type of satire that made brooks famous, why should this author be punished? :It is not the same time of satire that made Brooks famous. Brooks might have had numerous accuracy errors, but none were as egregious as this, and those that were within shouting distance were unintentional, and the result of the same lack of adequete research that wikis need not suffer, because they are a collaborative effort, and (in principle) dependant upon verifiable research. :"Wrong" is not satirical. Zombiepedia may, at times, veer towards the subtley humorous, but it will not be permitted to be misleading. Additionally, please see the aforementioned deletion candidacy page linked in the maroon box that is part of the deletion template for more specific reasons. And please sign in with your registered profile when you can. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 06:13, January 3, 2011 (UTC) misleading? this is a website dedicated to fiction. there is nothing about zombies right, acurate, true or verifiable on this website or on any other website, publication, broadcast, motion picture or telivision program. no, you can't really disolve zombies with maggots, fine. who cares? this page is amusing, which should be the goal of this website. : I respect your opinion on what a zombie wiki should be, but the goal of Zombiepedia is, and has always been as a source of information, not humor. : There are plenty of wikis with focuses on fictional work that take great effort at maintaining a standard of realism and canonicity, as shown here. A wiki is an online encyclodpedia, a resource. It is not a webpage. While it can be used to express ideas and sentiments based on fandom, an article with a highly subjective or disputed basis isn't an article - it's just another page. : And I understand your point that Zombies don't exist, and that Brooks' works are technically classified as humor/satire. But there aren't alot of tongue-in-cheek ironic moments, or "LOL-braaiiinz" sorts of campy jokes in World War Z. I think reading the World War Z article on wikipedia really shows what Brooks was going for. He did alot of work to stay as true to life as possible for maximum impact, and that is more important to the genre than maintaining a status as a comedy, and more helpful to the lifespan and prosperity of this wiki. Because people don't really come here for the laughs. It is understandible that, considering popular attitudes towards the genre, the literary world would simplify it to "Zombie = Humor". But while Zombieland was a comedy, there was nothing funny about 28 Days Later, or The Walking Dead. : Consistency even in a fictional tale is very important. You can't go on Marvel's wiki, and say that Juggernaut's armor can't be cut by Wolverine's claws, just because it is fictional, and you think it should be that way - the authors have established that he can cut it. There is a precedent. Likewise, notable works of zombie fiction also establish a precedent, and the authors of a wiki are expected to do their best to stay consistant with it, or point out departures from that consistency, if they are notable. Even putting aside the canon of events and abilities, staying true to life as a survival resource is still important. Brooks caught substantial criticism for several passages about inconsistancies with certain firearms. : Having said that, the main case that the author of maggots is trying to make could still appear on Zombiepedia as a Userplan or a blogpost. Those types of pages do not have the same standards of verifiability or objectivity as articles. You may search for "userplan" to see how those pages are written, and how Zombiepedia dictates they are named, to be separate from the legitimate articles. : — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>''']] talk 22:25, January 4, 2011 (UTC) thanks